QC says cavers DO have access to caves under the CROW Act

[graham]

I'm sure this principle of English law has been brought up before.  It was quoted by the chairman of the Central Council for Physical Recreation (for runner to the Sport and Recreational Alliance of which BCA is a member)

?England, it may be said, is not a country where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted: it is a country where everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden.?

Caving is not among the list of exclusions within the Act.

Doesn't need to be if caves are not access land.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I'm sure this principle of English law has been brought up before.  It was quoted by the chairman of the Central Council for Physical Recreation (for runner to the Sport and Recreational Alliance of which BCA is a member)

?England, it may be said, is not a country where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted: it is a country where everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden.?

Caving is not among the list of exclusions within the Act.

And it can't be deemed to be excluded because it is not on the list of included activities. Geocaching is not included but it is allowed along with an infinite list of possible allowed activities.

 

[Bottlebank]

I'm sure this principle of English law has been brought up before.  It was quoted by the chairman of the Central Council for Physical Recreation (for runner to the Sport and Recreational Alliance of which BCA is a member)

?England, it may be said, is not a country where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted: it is a country where everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden.?

Caving is not among the list of exclusions within the Act.

And it can't be deemed to be excluded because it is not on the list of included activities. Geocaching is not included but it is allowed along with an infinite list of possible allowed activities.

You seem to be missing the point Simon?

Admittedly both sides of the argument are short on evidence, but everything we do have, from the NCA submission to the Act itself backs up the idea that the legislators did not consider caves to be part of access land.

This suggests caving is neither included nor excluded under CRoW and that the only relevance of the Act to caving is that we have the right to walk across Access Land to an entrance, after which if needed we must negotiate access to the cave with the landowner.

Of course if the brief given to Dinah Rose contains evidence suggesting this is wrong, or if you have anything else, then let's see it - but so far no one has really come up with a counter argument  backed by anything other than a desire that CRoW should apply to caving?

As I said yesterday it'd be good to hear from both Dinah Rose and Linda Wilson on this point?

 

[graham]

As I said yesterday it'd be good to hear from both Dinah Rose and Linda Wilson on this point?

This is quoted from section 4 of Linda's report:

In addition, that cave systems have not been mapped as part of the statutory process of defining access land (the fact that they may have been mapped in other contexts by cavers is not relevant when considering the statutory framework of the Act) and therefore they cannot form part of access land. This is the view held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Hope that helps.

 

[Simon Wilson]

As I said yesterday it'd be good to hear from both Dinah Rose and Linda Wilson on this point?

This is quoted from section 4 of Linda's report:

In addition, that cave systems have not been mapped as part of the statutory process of defining access land (the fact that they may have been mapped in other contexts by cavers is not relevant when considering the statutory framework of the Act) and therefore they cannot form part of access land. This is the view held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Hope that helps.

Now, who would you believe? An eminent QC or a random caver's wife?

 

[tony from suffolk]

... the legislators did not consider caves to be part of access land.

In fact the legislators did not consider caves or caving.

 

[graham]

As I said yesterday it'd be good to hear from both Dinah Rose and Linda Wilson on this point?

This is quoted from section 4 of Linda's report:

In addition, that cave systems have not been mapped as part of the statutory process of defining access land (the fact that they may have been mapped in other contexts by cavers is not relevant when considering the statutory framework of the Act) and therefore they cannot form part of access land. This is the view held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Hope that helps.

Now, who would you believe? An eminent QC or a random caver's wife?

Ho Hum back with the ad-homs again.  :

 

[bograt]

Yesterday I really thought we where progressing, then, along came Graham!!

 

[cap n chris]

Now, who would you believe? An eminent QC or a random caver's wife?

The person who is right.

 

[Bottlebank]

As I said yesterday it'd be good to hear from both Dinah Rose and Linda Wilson on this point?

This is quoted from section 4 of Linda's report:

In addition, that cave systems have not been mapped as part of the statutory process of defining access land (the fact that they may have been mapped in other contexts by cavers is not relevant when considering the statutory framework of the Act) and therefore they cannot form part of access land. This is the view held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Hope that helps.

Now, who would you believe? An eminent QC or a random caver's wife?

Why would you post that?

Unlike you I would listen to both, and try and learn from their knowledge and experience, and apply what they say to the problem I am looking at.

Yesterday I really thought we where progressing, then, along came Graham!!

I did too, but I'd argue along came Simon. You really can't blame Graham for commenting when someone describes his wife in that way.

 

[peterk]

Yesterday I really thought we where progressing, then, along came Graham!!

Is the post you are referring to before or after Reply #665?

 

[Simon Wilson]

... the legislators did not consider caves to be part of access land.

In fact the legislators did not consider caves or caving.

Is that a fact? They had a submission from the NCA. Also, I think this might be pertinent and I'm surprised nobody has said it earlier (maybe they did and I can't remember) The owners of the caves/land were all consulted and I think there is a fair chance they might have mentioned caves and possibly even tried to get caves excluded, which they failed to do according to the QC.

Maybe they wouldn't have bothered mentioning caves. Somebody pointed out to me recently, when landowners were faced with the prospect of hordes of walkers, picknickers, metal detectorists, hangliderists, horse riders, cyclists etc. swarming all over their land, would they be bothered about the odd couple of cavers who spend about two minutes crossing their land to disappear out of sight and mind within their land boundary?

 

[bograt]

Yesterday I really thought we where progressing, then, along came Graham!!

Is the post you are referring to before or after Reply #665?

Around post 646.

 

[Simon Wilson]

As I said yesterday it'd be good to hear from both Dinah Rose and Linda Wilson on this point?

This is quoted from section 4 of Linda's report:

In addition, that cave systems have not been mapped as part of the statutory process of defining access land (the fact that they may have been mapped in other contexts by cavers is not relevant when considering the statutory framework of the Act) and therefore they cannot form part of access land. This is the view held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Hope that helps.

Now, who would you believe? An eminent QC or a random caver's wife?

Ho Hum back with the ad-homs again.  :

Lighten up. I don't think anybody is taking this seriously any more, are we? In any case, I was paraphasing you. Surely I was not the only one waiting with that one ready for the right moment, I just got there first.

Quote from Graham:
Reply #307 on: June 23, 2014, 03:07:45 pm
Now, who would you believe? A government agency tasked with overseeing this act by the parliament that passed it or a random journalist's sister, no matter how many exams she's passed?

 

[braveduck]

Twenty Seven pages and we are right back where we started ,with the same arguments !
Can't wait for the the 16th AUG and it,s my birthday!

 

[tony from suffolk]

Why can't we all just - get along? All opinions have value, don't they?

 

[Simon Wilson]

Twenty Seven pages and we are right back where we started ,with the same arguments !
Can't wait for the the 16th AUG and it,s my birthday!

Happy birthday.
One of the reasons given for locking the last CRoW thread was that it was 27 pages long.

 

[Bottlebank]

Twenty Seven pages and we are right back where we started ,with the same arguments !
Can't wait for the the 16th AUG and it,s my birthday!

Happy birthday.
One of the reasons given for locking the last CRoW thread was that it was 27 pages long.

Oh well, if there's a danger of that this is probably a good time to point that the NCA submission appears to have been ignored and the landowners were part of the consultation because not because they had caves on their land but because they were landowners.

None of us know so far as I'm aware (if some did please correct me) whether any landowners mentioned caves, caving or tried to get caves excluded.

 

[graham]

Yesterday I really thought we where progressing, then, along came Graham!!

I'm sorry? Until I answered the person who was rude about my wife, I stuck very closely to the facts, proffered references and direct comments. What have you contributed to this thread that has actually shed any light on the issue.

As it happens, I have had a number of helpful comments and useful links given directly to me by those who share my views on this matter but do not wish to become targets for the bile that gets shot my way. I understand this and I don't blame them.

 

[bograt]

I would like to see a study of the historical reasons for many of the current access controls, I suspect many of them will be rendered obsolete by the advent of CRoW (Grouse Moors, private land, etc.) whilst others can be legitamised on the grounds of conservation or general public safety. Such a study could indentify which systems can sensibly retain restrictions and those that no longer require them.


Interesting  that there has not been much response to this suggestion, maybe too much to hide?